On 8/7/2017 8:33 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:44:40PM -0700, Michel Thierry wrote:
On 7/20/2017 10:57 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Blocking in a worker is ok, that's what the unbound_wq is for. And it
unifies the paths between the blocking and nonblocking commit, giving
me
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:44:40PM -0700, Michel Thierry wrote:
> On 7/20/2017 10:57 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Blocking in a worker is ok, that's what the unbound_wq is for. And it
> > unifies the paths between the blocking and nonblocking commit, giving
> > me just one path where I have to
On 7/20/2017 10:57 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
Blocking in a worker is ok, that's what the unbound_wq is for. And it
unifies the paths between the blocking and nonblocking commit, giving
me just one path where I have to implement the deadlock avoidance
trickery in the next patch.
I first tried to
Blocking in a worker is ok, that's what the unbound_wq is for. And it
unifies the paths between the blocking and nonblocking commit, giving
me just one path where I have to implement the deadlock avoidance
trickery in the next patch.
I first tried to implement the following patch without this
Blocking in a worker is ok, that's what the unbound_wq is for. And it
unifies the paths between the blocking and nonblocking commit, giving
me just one path where I have to implement the deadlock avoidance
trickery in the next patch.
I first tried to implement the following patch without this
